"The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party": Is this important?

[Siddhartha]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?src=me&ref=homepage

This is a New York Times Op-Ed article. It says that a couple of very rich individuals are supporting the Tea Party.

I am not sure if this is important in terms of the legitimacy of the movement. What do you think?

 

[Phokus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?src=me&ref=homepage

This is a New York Times Op-Ed article. It says that a couple of very rich individuals are supporting the Tea Party.

I am not sure if this is important in terms of the legitimacy of the movement. What do you think?

It is if the Tea Party wants to keep saying they're a grass roots organization, when in fact they're being funded by billionaires and supported by fox news/glenn beck.

 

[Craig234]

Nice article. JFK got it right:

They look suspiciously at their neighbors and their leaders. They call for a 'man on horseback' because they do not trust the people... They equate the Democratic Party with the welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, and socialism with communism.

 

[boomerang]

With George Soros funding a multitude of leftist organizations, I guess I'd have to say so what? If anything, it's a leveling of the playing field.

Besides the fact that it's an opinion piece in the NYT no less, with the inherent slant, who may or may not be funding whatever movement that's going head to head with the progressive agenda is neither here nor there. It is what it is. If the people choose to rally behind the movement, my suggestion would be to deal with it the best you can.

It's only sinister if your political viewpoint doesn't mesh. The tea party movement can classify themselves in any manner they wish. They don't need anyone else's permission to do that.

 

[Siddhartha]

With George Soros funding a multitude of leftist organizations, I guess I'd have to say so what? If anything, it's a leveling of the playing field.

Besides the fact that it's an opinion piece in the NYT no less, with the inherent slant, who may or may not be funding whatever movement that's going head to head with the progressive agenda is neither here nor there. It is what it is. If the people choose to rally behind the movement, my suggestion would be to deal with it the best you can.

It's only sinister if your political viewpoint doesn't mesh. The tea party movement can classify themselves in any manner they wish. They don't need anyone else's permission to do that.

The op-ed piece I linked mentions George Soros:

"Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes."

 

[ProfJohn]

The OP-ED is by Frank Rich the ubber leftist of the NY Times.

Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

 

[hal2kilo]

The OP-ED is by Frank Rich the ubber leftist of the NY Times.

Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

Yea, he's as ridiculous and over the top as Glen Beck, Rush, and Hannity lol.

 

[GroundedSailor]

With George Soros funding a multitude of leftist organizations, I guess I'd have to say so what? If anything, it's a leveling of the playing field.

Besides the fact that it's an opinion piece in the NYT no less, with the inherent slant, who may or may not be funding whatever movement that's going head to head with the progressive agenda is neither here nor there. It is what it is. If the people choose to rally behind the movement, my suggestion would be to deal with it the best you can.

It's only sinister if your political viewpoint doesn't mesh. The tea party movement can classify themselves in any manner they wish. They don't need anyone else's permission to do that.

You cannot compare George Soros to the Koch Bros. One is open while the others secretive. One is supporting agendas that don't benefit him, the Koch brothers stand to gain personally.

Back on topic. I find it ironic that Koch brothers who are one of the richest corporate heads would fund libertarian groups like the tea party who are opposed to such extreme concentrations of power.

I posted this in another thread.

Here a great article on the Koch brother. A long read but worth it to get an in depth view:
Covert Operations -
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.

A couple of excerpts:

Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”

Americans for Prosperity has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception. In the weeks before the first Tax Day protests, in April, 2009, Americans for Prosperity hosted a Web site offering supporters “Tea Party Talking Points.” The Arizona branch urged people to send tea bags to Obama; the Missouri branch urged members to sign up for “Taxpayer Tea Party Registration” and provided directions to nine protests. The group continues to stoke the rebellion. The North Carolina branch recently launched a “Tea Party Finder” Web site, advertised as “a hub for all the Tea Parties in North Carolina.”

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.”

A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”

..

 

[Siddhartha]

The OP-ED is by Frank Rich the ubber leftist of the NY Times.

Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

So Tea Party isn't getting financial support from Rupert Murdoch and David and Charles Koch?

 

[cKGunslinger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?src=me&ref=homepage

This is a New York Times Op-Ed article. It says that a couple of very rich individuals are supporting the Tea Party.

I am not sure if this is important in terms of the legitimacy of the movement. What do you think?

Depends on what you believe the Tea Party to be.

If you believe it is a true grass-roots movement based on feelings that have been swelling in this country for a decade or more and have just recently gained enough momentum to begin having organization and a collective agenda, then yes, this really hampers its legitimacy. :'(

If you believe it to be initial feelings of anti-government among some that was quickly co-opted by desperate political parties and certain journalists in order to tap into some base feelings of unease about the current political climate, largely based upon nebulous and often unfounded fears, and deftly aimed and honed into reactionary opinions that do nothing to help this country celebrate its 97% like-mindedness, but only help to further its divide its citizens over the 3% differences that exist among them to the typical end of cycling parties to accomplish nothing more than their shared agenda of maintaining power and control over those who cheerfully champion their ideas and beliefs as their own, then no, this is just par for the course. :|

 

[boomerang]

The op-ed piece I linked mentions George Soros:

"Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes."

I'm not sure what the point of the quote is but with billionaires funding both sides of the fight, and it is a fight, anyone who thinks that "the people" are going to come out a winner is sorely mistaken. If Mr. Soros "wins", are we really going to be better off because of an assumption that he likes to pay taxes?

This is exactly why we need to find the common ground necessary to fight together against this type of intervention into our political system and ultimately our lives. It's a mistake to assume that one breed of billionaire is kind and benevolent and the other is evil. Using Mr. Soros as an example, he's far from kind and benevolent and a little minor research will prove that out.

Mr. Obama says that "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." Now he's a millionaire, so are we to believe this statement is genuinely what he feels? Where's the breaking point between the rich we can trust to look out for the little people and those we can't?

We're supposed to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. What we have is far from that and it's been a long time in the making. We need to find some common ground and work together to slay the true evil, or we're destined to a fate in which none of us will prosper.

The government should be run according to the wishes of the majority of the people whether those wishes are right or whether they are wrong. Our system is very flexible and can be altered as needed when errors are made. But the people need to be in control not those with power due to their wealth.

I'm voting against every incumbent yet again this year. My hope is that this time, enough of my fellow citizens are of a like mind and we can start cleaning house. It's the only option I see short of drastic measures. Remember that the majority of the country feels basically the same on most issues. Together I feel we can accomplish much, but divided as they now have us, we all will fall. I firmly believe this.

 

[hal2kilo]

So Tea Party isn't getting financial support from Rupert Murdoch and David and Charles Koch?

While deal in facts when you can throw a strawman curve into the argument.

 

[boomerang]

You cannot compare George Soros to the Koch Bros. One is open while the others secretive. One is supporting agendas that don't benefit him, the Koch brothers stand to gain personally.

Back on topic. I find it ironic that Koch brothers who are one of the richest corporate heads would fund libertarian groups like the tea party who are opposed to such extreme concentrations of power.

I posted this in another thread.

Here a great article on the Koch brother. A long read but worth it to get an in depth view:
Covert Operations -
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.

Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker reads mostly like an opinion piece. I read mostly viewpoints with nothing to back them up. Based on her history, it's a slanted piece with little real value. In light of the topic at hand, I see nothing tying them to the tea party except opinion. She sites one study and that in relation to environmental issues.

I could come up with something similar on Mr. Soros that you would discount just as easily.

 

[ProfJohn]

Does it really mater who funds these groups?

And how come you guys never complain about the unions spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support left wing candidates?

 

[IGBT]

how about all the liberal KOOK org's george soros and the ford foundation support?

 

[LegendKiller]

It should be pretty apparent to people that these guys aren't great for this country. Their company is one of the biggest polluters and they are known for shady tactics. Without regulations they'd be far worse (and were). The "free market" outlook of the Tea Party is nothing but a joke intended to allow them to aggregate more wealth to the top at any expense.

There's nothing wrong with people making money. However, what happens when, all wealth is aggregated even further to the top and the lower classes are then nothing but indentured servants to the rich? Isn't that effectively a monarchy? What do you do then?

 

[jackschmittusa]

boomerang

Just because you are rich doesn't mean your motives have to be self serving. Soros seems to put his money behind what he believes is right, the Kochs seem to put it where it will make them richer and more powerful. Even Warren Buffet has said he doesn't mind when he has to pay a lot of taxes, because that means he made a lot of money that year.

Those that seem obsessed with having more money and power always push for a right wing agenda. The Kochs are but one example. The list is legion.

 

[Jhhnn]

While deal in facts when you can throw a strawman curve into the argument.

One of PJ's standard tactics- attack the source, attempt to kill the messenger.

The whole bit about Soros is quite dishonest, as well. He's a Johnny come lately to the whole perception shaping role of foundations and thinktanks, anyway. The Koch brothers and their allies have been doing it for 30 years on a much more massive scale and in a much more pervasive way.

Soros does so quite openly, while the funders of the Right employ the same methods that the Mafia uses to launder their money.

This political season should be unbelievably dirty and underhanded, given the recent SCOTUS decision about corporate donations. We'll see ads from "issue groups" we never heard of before and never will again, paid for by special purpose entities whose funding sources are totally obscured by mechanisms like Panamanian bearer corporations...

I'm all for free speech, but when it's the kind of free speech that's paid for, I want to know who's paying for it to be said... and what they have to gain if enough people agree.

 

[Siddhartha]

how about all the liberal KOOK org's george soros and the ford foundation support?

It would be great if everyone would get back on topic. The OP is not about Soros or the Ford Foundation.

Do you think it is important that Billionaires are backing the Tea Party?

 

[Craig234]

The OP-ED is by Frank Rich the ubber leftist of the NY Times.

Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

No, he's right, and you're not honest.

You don't provide one shred of evidence of what he got wrong to back up your attack.

There's a reason you don't - because the evidence is against you.

So you call names, when is the level you post on. Show that wrong, prove him wrong.

The lack of substance to your post is all that needs be noted.

 

[Craig234]

how about all the liberal KOOK org's george soros and the ford foundation support?

When the Koch brothers spend big millions to spread a selfish, paranoid ideology that directly profits them by things like reducing environmental enforcement against their pollution, and when Warren Buffet says he deserves to have his taxes increased, it's not the same thing, despite you viewing it that way. You post utter ignorance and are clueless.

 

[Amused]

It would be great if everyone would get back on topic. The OP is not about Soros or the Ford Foundation.

Do you think it is important that Billionaires are backing the Tea Party?

Not at all. Why do you? Just because they offer financial support of a movement they agree with does not mean they created, nor control it.

For every movment there is a billionaire who agrees with it and does what they do best, throw money at it. So fucking what?

And people keep mentioning Soros because of the pure hypocrisy of this MSM "news" about the tea party.

I have to ask, does financial support from the rich instantly de-legitimize a movement? I would say no. To do that one must point to signifigant control. And there is no proof the tea party is under the control of anyone. It has too many factions, and too many varied opinions. It's FAR from unified.

But Soros... well...

 

[Craig234]

Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker reads mostly like an opinion piece. I read mostly viewpoints with nothing to back them up. Based on her history, it's a slanted piece with little real value. In light of the topic at hand, I see nothing tying them to the tea party except opinion. She sites one study and that in relation to environmental issues.

I could come up with something similar on Mr. Soros that you would discount just as easily.

The comment of the brainwashed. You can't see the plain facts in front of you. You are an example of the dangerous craziness that has overcome millions of Americans.

 

[Amused]

When the Koch brothers spend big millions to spread a selfish, paranoid ideology that directly profits them by things like reducing environmental enforcement against their pollution, and when Warren Buffet says he deserves to have his taxes increased, it's not the same thing, despite you viewing it that way. You post utter ignorance and are clueless.

Craig, it's time to take off the partisan blinders. Seriously... Pot Kettle and all that.

 

[Amused]

The comment of the brainwashed. You can't see the plain facts in front of you. You are an example of the dangerous craziness that has overcome millions of Americans.

Look in the mirror.